Data used:
## [1] "../data/cleaned/prelim_singlereview.csv"
From the preliminary data:
My takeaway (Grant): A fair amount of small scale studies reach up into the medium scale category, but hardly any large scale studies have smaller scale components. Way too many studies do not report (or we couldn’t find) the spatial scale at which they are operating…maybe a lot of these are simulations? - doesn’t look like it, see below
The end result of these numbers may just be displayed as n=X in the existing scale figure, but there are other potential ways to display these things, too.
Key for binning:
## Scale_binned scales
## 1 Small 25m,50m,100m,500m,1km
## 2 Medium 10km,100km,1000km
## 3 Large 100Mgm,100Gm,101Gm
Number of papers in each bin:
## # A tibble: 8 x 2
## Scale_groups count
## <fct> <int>
## 1 Small 86
## 2 Small,Medium 23
## 3 Medium 18
## 4 Medium,Large 6
## 5 Large 25
## 6 Small,Large 5
## 7 Small,Medium,Large 1
## 8 unk 71
Unclear what explains why so many studies had unknown spatial scale…
## Scale_binned scales
## 1 Small 25m,50m,100m,500m,1km
## 2 Medium 10km,100km,1000km
## 3 Large 100Mgm,100Gm,101Gm
Number of papers in each bin:
## # A tibble: 8 x 2
## Scale_groups count
## <fct> <int>
## 1 Small 15
## 2 Small,Medium 3
## 3 Medium 4
## 4 Medium,Large 2
## 5 Large 10
## 6 Small,Large 2
## 7 Small,Medium,Large 1
## 8 unk 9
These plots have some tough-to-look-at colors (for me at least), and we might need to think about how to break up the groups, but I think they’re helpful nonetheless.
Labels indicate total counts.
Not sure how to group the studies with multiple types of methods here…
Not sure how to group the studies with multiple types of methods here…